|
You may have to get some of your own documentation for this as this was a post on another board I frequent but I am quite sure it will be enough to debunk hitchen's credibility
------------------------------------------------
Hitchens has a lot of gall to blast Moore for conspiracy theories.
Remember that lone sarin shell that turned up a few weeks ago? And remember how at the same time there was a failed chemical attack against some target in Jordan?
Well, this just proves that Saddam had chemical weapons!
"So a Sarin-infected device is exploded in Iraq, and across the border in Jordan the authorities say that nerve and gas weapons have been discovered for use against them by the followers of Zarqawi, who was in Baghdad well before the invasion. Where, one idly inquires, did these toys come from? No, it couldn't be. …"
Well, actually, Chris, the sarin shell was over a decade old.
Hitch hasn't apologized for this dishonesty, though. He just looks for the next piece of very thin evidence that he can present in his shrill way. "Why, you lefties are so stupid..."
In a debate before the war, Hitch stated that N. Korea and Iraq were working together. The other guests scoffed at this, as did I.
After the war, it turns out that Iraq tried to acquire a missile from N. Korea. N. Korea took Iraq's money and then sent Iraq nothing. This is how close the relationship was.
Yet now Hitch is using this piece of non-evidence as if it is absolute proof of Saddam's having weapons of mass destruction. No, Hitch, a missile is not a weapons of mass destruction. No, Hitch, he never got the weapon.
But this is just typical of Hitch ens' sophistry. Before the war he averred that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When they weren't found, he switched his reasons for the war: it was now about helping the Iraqi people who were in a failed state.
But his dishonesty is even worse. After Richard Clark testified before congress, Hitch felt a need to attack Clark and prove that Al Quaida has links to Saddam. His proof is the El Sharif (sp?) medicine factory in Sudan.
Go back a bit to 1998, when Clinton bombed this factory because he claimed it was producing chemical weapons. Turns out, the factory was producing just what Sudan said it was--aspirins.
In 1998, Hitch used the bombing of this factory to attack Clinton. Clinton deserved to be impeached for this unlawful bombing, but Hitch went so far as to state he had proof that Clinton bombed the factory just to cover-up the Lewinsky affair. He had no proof. He just used the tactics he uses now, yelling and innuendo.
But it was beyond a doubt that the aspirin factory was just that.
Now lets zoom forward to 2004 and get back to how Hitch attacked Richard Clarke. According to Hitch, Clarke said that the Sudan "chemical" factory was funded by Osama Bin Laden. He then went on to repeat Clark's statement in 1998 that the factory had connections to Iraq.
See, Hitch screamed in the Wall Street Journal! The left's own hero, Richard Clarke, says that there was a connection between Osama and Hussein!
See the dishonesty? In 1998, the factory produces aspirins. Hitch wrote a whole book proving this.
Now in 2004, it suits Hitchens' needs to call it a chemical factory, so he pretends it is one. It is as if he never wrote the book in 98.
Is that dishonest or what?
And I could go on and on about Hitchens' dishonesty. If he weren't such a nobody, it would be fun to create a whole web site debunking his weekly screeds.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(285 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
